Chandler and Schwartz convo (Redemption) - TRANSCRIPT

Important Statements from the Jackson camp and pertinent transcripts from various TV shows about Michael.

Moderator: Global Moderator

crazychick!!!
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 2:11 pm

Chandler and Schwartz convo (Redemption) - TRANSCRIPT

Post by crazychick!!! » Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:07 pm

[QUOTE=shelly;234458]"The only reason he gives on why he thinks that is because Michael stopped calling him. And he's not part of the relationship Michael had with June and her children. So, he thinks something is going on because they cut him out."

Yes but did you read the whole transcript I posted? You can read he recorded the phone call between MJ and Jordan and said he had evidence. There are some part in the transcript where he really seemed to believe his son had an affair with MJ.

But on the other hand I don't remember reading in Orth or Dimond's articles that the prosecution had recorded phone calls which prove molestation. I think if these recordings were real they would have spoken about that.[/QUOTE]

Did YOU read the whole transcript? Did you read the part where Dave asks Evan if he thinks MJ is f@cking his son? And Evan responds with "I have no idea." If he really had "proof" or truly believed it, then he would have had a different answer to Dave's question, right?

He has all this "proof," but he doesn't give it to the Prosecutors? If there was a tape that would prove the allegations without a shadow of a doubt, then trust me it would have been all over the media.

Evan is just saying stuff. He doesn't know or believe anything.

shelly
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 6:18 pm

Chandler and Schwartz convo (Redemption) - TRANSCRIPT

Post by shelly » Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:58 pm

Did YOU read the whole transcript? Did you read the part where Dave asks Evan if he thinks MJ is f@cking his son? And Evan responds with "I have no idea." If he really had "proof" or truly believed it, then he would have had a different answer to Dave's question, right?

He has all this "proof," but he doesn't give it to the Prosecutors? If there was a tape that would prove the allegations without a shadow of a doubt, then trust me it would have been all over the media.

Evan is just saying stuff. He doesn't know or believe anything.

Yes I agree with you on what you said. I just don't understand why he wanted to humiliated him so much

susanrello
Trial Period
Trial Period
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:17 pm

Chandler and Schwartz convo (Redemption) - TRANSCRIPT

Post by susanrello » Tue Feb 16, 2010 5:21 pm

If Evan had a tape of MJ and JC speaking inappropiately then the grand jury should have had no problem indicting.

shelly
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 6:18 pm

Chandler and Schwartz convo (Redemption) - TRANSCRIPT

Post by shelly » Tue Feb 16, 2010 6:03 pm

If Evan had a tape of MJ and JC speaking inappropiately then the grand jury should have had no problem indicting.

Did Ray Chandler speak about these tapes when he was on TV in 2005? If there was a tape he, or one of the former sheriff, would have mentionned it.

susanrello
Trial Period
Trial Period
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:17 pm

Chandler and Schwartz convo (Redemption) - TRANSCRIPT

Post by susanrello » Tue Feb 16, 2010 6:29 pm

[QUOTE=shelly;234480]If Evan had a tape of MJ and JC speaking inappropiately then the grand jury should have had no problem indicting.

Did Ray Chandler speak about these tapes when he was on TV in 2005? If there was a tape he, or one of the former sheriff, would have mentionned it.[/QUOTE]

I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt there is a tape. Another reason is, in the 2005 trial Sneddon brought out the big guns. A tape would be a bazooka.
No I doubt there is tape, the only place it seems to exist is in this transcript.

shelly
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 6:18 pm

Chandler and Schwartz convo (Redemption) - TRANSCRIPT

Post by shelly » Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:02 pm

I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt there is a tape. Another reason is, in the 2005 trial Sneddon brought out the big guns. A tape would be a bazooka.
No I doubt there is tape, the only place it seems to exist is in this transcript.

I agree with you. Sneddon would have tried to use it as he did with the pictures.

susanrello
Trial Period
Trial Period
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:17 pm

Chandler and Schwartz convo (Redemption) - TRANSCRIPT

Post by susanrello » Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:11 pm

[QUOTE=shelly;234469]Did YOU read the whole transcript? Did you read the part where Dave asks Evan if he thinks MJ is f@cking his son? And Evan responds with "I have no idea." If he really had "proof" or truly believed it, then he would have had a different answer to Dave's question, right?

He has all this "proof," but he doesn't give it to the Prosecutors? If there was a tape that would prove the allegations without a shadow of a doubt, then trust me it would have been all over the media.

Evan is just saying stuff. He doesn't know or believe anything.

Yes I agree with you on what you said. I just don't understand why he wanted to humiliated him so much[/QUOTE]

Shelly,

There is a very very good reason why none of this is making sense to you. The reason is, none of it makes sense. The more you learn the less you realize you know. The less you know the more you want to find out. The more you find out, the more you wish you never knew. Of course there is the very good possibility that the little you know is spin. The media, publicists, lawyers, etc are all capable of spinning straw into gold. All sides want us to believe them.

After reading both sides of this case what I can say is, child molestation belongs in a criminal court, not civil. This case should never have been settled. Even Mesereau said it was a mistake to settle. If you believe MJ was innocent and framed, no good came out of this for him. He ended up in rehab, and died from propofol intoxification, an anesthesia he was using as a sleep aid. I don't believe for a second that MJ was addicted to prescription drugs from 1984 due to scalp burns. PLEASE. If you believe the Chandlers they lost too. June was estranged from her son, Evan was estranged from everyone, he died from a self-inflicted gun-shot wound. Jordan, well, he seemed to have went underground. I believe all the players involved lost, and the only winners were the bottom feeding journalist.

oldschoolfan
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:19 pm

Chandler and Schwartz convo (Redemption) - TRANSCRIPT

Post by oldschoolfan » Tue Feb 16, 2010 11:39 pm

[QUOTE=susanrello;234483]I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt there is a tape. Another reason is, in the 2005 trial Sneddon brought out the big guns. A tape would be a bazooka.
No I doubt there is tape, the only place it seems to exist is in this transcript.[/QUOTE]

From what I know it's actually on youtube.
the member formerly known as MJslave...

shelly
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 6:18 pm

Chandler and Schwartz convo (Redemption) - TRANSCRIPT

Post by shelly » Wed Feb 17, 2010 5:24 am

From what I know it's actually on youtube.

Are you sure?

We were speaking about a tape where MJ and Jordan would be speaking about sex together.

oldschoolfan
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:19 pm

Chandler and Schwartz convo (Redemption) - TRANSCRIPT

Post by oldschoolfan » Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:35 am

Oh, no I mean the one with Evan. I don't know if Sneddon would have used a tape in court if it exsisted as the prosecution wasn't allowed to use a lot of the evidence from the first investigation. Having said that he probably would have made an attempt to do so anyway, so we would have heard of it. I do think Sneddon was just trying to humiliate Michael, with the porn magazines, attempting to show the photos of Michael's body, etc.

This tape had a few comments that sounded a bit 'what is he talking about?', such as the comment about having evidence to prove it, but he doesn't make any direct reference to Michael molesting Jordan i.e. 'I have evidence to prove Michael sexually assulted my son'. Then there is the fact he quite obviously was out to seek revenge on Michael and stated he didn't care about how it affected Jordan, plus the fact he said he was mad that Michael stopped calling him- well why would he want to keep being friends with Michael if he did something terrible? In some parts it DID sound as though he was talking about sexual abuse, but reading through the whole thing with an unbiased mind it sounds almost like paranoia, he doesn't say Michael DID molest his son, even when directly questioned. It almost sounds like Jordan took to Michael as a father and they stopped talking to Evan, so he got worked up and was out to get Michael for taking his family. He sounded as though he was angry at Michael for cutting contact, he DID sound like he was pissed off and wanted to destroy Michael, but in the sense of 'this man has sexually abused my son' he didn't sound so concerned for it at all. I'm not going to get personal but I know a lot of abusive people can talk like that, totally play the innocent one, that their children are in danger and their other parent is clueless, that so and so is a bad person and they are greatly concerned. I do know of that, and this conversation almost sounds like that, manipulative/pathological liar.

He could be talking about something else, the 'evidence' he had against Michael could be something different- something about him being an addict perhaps (Michael fell into his addiction with the medication from a tooth operation, Michael became addicted around the time he knew the Chandlers, Evan Chandler was a dentist. Put the peices together...). It could have been anything he was talking about.
I just think that although I can never say I know the truth, the fact is they could have taken Michael to court and had him locked up and EASILY still got that $20 million- psychological damages, fame, etc. He could have easily testified against Michael the second time around. He was more than happy to spend 2 years in court to try and get $60 million out of Michael (3 times the original payment settlement), yet he never went to court for the fact his own son apparently got abused because he got millions of dollars. Plus if these people had enough evidence and hate against Michael that they could do what they did, accuse him of these things, and also write entire novels of Michael and Jordans 'relationship' including word-for-word conversations and intimate sexual details, then they should have used all that to get him locked up and put on the sex offenders list. But they didn't. They took the money and ran, they let him get away with it, the let him abuse again and still wouldn't even help get him locked up (remember Jordan threatened legal action against the prosecution if they forced him to testify).

The way I see it, it's easy to look at it both ways depending on what you chose to believe. This is why I try and find the facts, and I lean towards innocence because there is more to prove Michael's innocence than there is to prove guilt. The media focuses on the negativity, plus people lie about the facts (there were people who said that the description matched when it didn't, and if you read the autopsy report it kind of confirmed that- Jordan said Michael was circumsised, it states on his autopsy report that he actually wasn't).

The entire thing is just confusing. I refuse to look at a single side of the story to suit my own beliefs, but the whole thing just does my head in.
the member formerly known as MJslave...

crazychick!!!
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 2:11 pm

Chandler and Schwartz convo (Redemption) - TRANSCRIPT

Post by crazychick!!! » Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:49 pm

[QUOTE=oldschoolfan;234520]He was more than happy to spend 2 years in court to try and get $60 million out of Michael (3 times the original payment settlement), yet he never went to court for the fact his own son apparently got abused because he got millions of dollars.[/QUOTE]

Actually he sued MJ for four years. The "EVANStory" lawsuit didn't get thrown out of court until July 11, 2000.

oldschoolfan
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 1609
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:19 pm

Chandler and Schwartz convo (Redemption) - TRANSCRIPT

Post by oldschoolfan » Thu Feb 18, 2010 5:28 am

[QUOTE=crazychick!!!;234558]Actually he sued MJ for four years. The "EVANStory" lawsuit didn't get thrown out of court until July 11, 2000.[/QUOTE]

Oh I meant in regards to Michael apparently 'breaching the gag order' in a tv interview. That was thrown out in 1997 (?) I think.
the member formerly known as MJslave...

shelly
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 6:18 pm

Chandler and Schwartz convo (Redemption) - TRANSCRIPT

Post by shelly » Thu Feb 18, 2010 4:03 pm

Oh I meant in regards to Michael apparently 'breaching the gag order' in a tv interview. That was thrown out in 1997 (?) I think.

He filed the lawsuit in May 1996 and the interview was in June 1995.

crazychick!!!
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 2:11 pm

Chandler and Schwartz convo (Redemption) - TRANSCRIPT

Post by crazychick!!! » Thu Feb 18, 2010 5:30 pm

oldschoolfan;234615 wrote:Oh I meant in regards to Michael apparently 'breaching the gag order' in a tv interview. That was thrown out in 1997 (?) I think.
I know. Evan started suing MJ in 1996 over breaching the gag order in an interview he did with Diane Sawyer. The lawsuit was thrown out in '99, but Evan appealed it. However, it got thrown out again in 2000. Whisper, posted this article in the 1993 and Info section.
Copyright 2000 Metropolitan News Company
Metropolitan News Enterprise (Los Angeles, California)

July 11, 2000

C.A. Rejects Claim Michael Jackson Breached Molest Settlement

By a MetNews Staff Writer

Claims that entertainer Michael Jackson breached his settlement agreement with the dentist-screenwriter who sued him in 1993 on molestation allegations were properly resolved by the arbitrators who ruled in Jackson's favor, the Court of Appeal for this district has ruled.

Arguments by Evan Chandler that the agreement's arbitration clause applies only to a narrow clause covering nondisclosure of the settlement terms were properly rejected by Superior Court judges in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties and by the arbitrators, Presiding Justice Paul A. Turner wrote for Div. Five.

"We indulge every intendment to give effect of the arbitration proceedings and resolve any doubt as the scope of the agreement to arbitrate in favor of requiring resolution of the entire dispute in the arbitral forum; particularly when all of plaintiffs' claims arose from a violation by Mr. Jackson of the confidentiality provision," Turner said.

A copy of Turner's unpublished June 26 opinion was obtained yesterday by the MetNews.

At issue were a 1995 appearance Jackson made on ABC's "Prime Time Live" with Diane Sawyer, lyrics to a Jackson song and several other instances in which Chandler alleged on behalf of himself and his son that the singer violated the confidential settlement by making reference to the suit.

Chandler's attorney, Peter A. Goldenring of Ventura, had argued that because there was no specific arbitration language applicable to a provision of the agreement dealing with commercial exploitation of the settlement or the alleged relationship, the alleged breach of that provision wasn't subject to compulsory arbitration.

The arbitrators retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Bonnie Martin, retired state Supreme Court Justice Edward Panelli, and retired Fourth District Court of Appeal Justice John K. Trotter held that there was no breach because the complained-of activities involved the commercial exploitation of Jackson's "own public image, his music, and his new album, not the [plaintiffs]."

As a public figure, the arbitrators added, Jackson could not be deemed by the settlement agreement to be barred from proclaiming his innocence in a public forum such as a television interview.

Turner said it was up to the arbitrators, not the courts, to construe the agreement.

"In the present case, the arbitrators' finding of no wrongful conduct based on their interpretation of the agreement...did not conflict with any explicit and mandatory term of the agreement."

Chandler sued after Jackson allegedly molested his then-13-year-old son, Jordan. Prosecutors investigated but never brought criminal charges, and Jackson reportedly made a payment of several million dollars to Chandler to settle the lawsuit.

But Chandler sued again in 1996 for breach of the agreement. He cited the Prime Time Live segment, Jackson's HIStory album, an article in GQ magazine, and Jackson's alleged solicitation of radio personality Howard Stern "to resurrect [Jackson's] public image by exploiting the events relating to Plaintiff and the Underlying Action."

The album includes a song that generated controversy over lyrics that some reviewers and others alleged were anti-Semitic and were also cited in some media reports as critical of Chandler. The GQ magazine article discussed Chandler's background and the events that led to the lawsuit.

On the Prime Time Live program, Jackson and then-wife Lisa Marie Presley discussed the first lawsuit and Jackson's decision to settle it. Presley was sued along with Jackson, but Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge James Jennings ruled, on an agency theory, that she was entitled to enforce the arbitration agreement.

Jackson was represented in the Court of Appeal by Zia F. Modabber of Katten Muchin Zavis.

The case is Jordan C. v. Jackson, B134553.

annelise
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 2:53 pm

Chandler and Schwartz convo (Redemption) - TRANSCRIPT

Post by annelise » Thu Feb 18, 2010 5:37 pm

[QUOTE=shelly;234401]I really don't know what to believe about that transcript. There are parts hich makes me think he really believe his son was molested and some where he sounds like an asshole.[/QUOTE]

yeah me too and why dave schwartz would even ask "do you think he's fucking Jordie?"!!!! once again i hated thoses transcripts

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest